ArticleScientific reports2025
Automated evaluation of accessibility issues of webpage content: tool and evaluation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- User cum expert judgement model for accessibility using fuzzy approach.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years, there has been a growing field of research focused on comprehending complexity in relation to web platform accessibility. It has shown that it is quite difficult to accurately assess and identify web accessibility concerns while taking multifaceted factors into account. It is imperative to prioritize multi-dimensional characteristics as they facilitate the integration of many aspects into the assessment process, which is a critical component in enhancing the accessibility evaluation process. Although many existing solutions with varying degrees of computational success have been proposed by scholars, they are confined to (1) following a certain set of rules of a specific guideline; (2) limited evaluation properties; (3) disregard for user criteria; and (4) complex functional properties or architectural design. To address these problems, we present in this work a straightforward yet precise model that assesses webpage accessibility by taking into account common features of the structural and visual elements of webpages that are part of the HTML Document Object Model (DOM) structure. In order to predict a webpage's accessibility status, we implemented three distinct algorithms to analyze web features/objects considering both semantic and non-semantic aspects. We performed experimental work to validate 20 university webpages in Hungary through our developed tool. The computed result of the developed tool was assessed by comparing the result with a user study where we performed user testing that included 40 users' 80 reviews on the same 20 university webpages in Hungary. Additionally, we compared our developed tool with other scientific models (that already exist) and existing ten open-source commercial automated testing tools considering several functional characteristics or properties. This two-phase assessment result shows that the developed tool has several advanced properties and the potential to predict the accessibility issues of the tested webpages.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.